Google files counter-suit against Rockstar, seeking to avoid East Texas

Google seeks to move dispute with Apple-owned Rockstar to California.

Rockstar Consortium, a patent-holding company formed from the bankrupt Canadian telecom company Nortel, sued Google and manufacturers of Android phones over patents almost two months ago.

Since Rockstar is part owned by Apple and Microsoft, the move looks like a major escalation of the patent wars that have brewed over Android.

This week, Google filed its counter-attack seeking to invalidate Rockstar's patents. That's a normal step for a defendant in a patent suit. But notably, Google didn't file in the East Texas court in which it was sued. Instead, in a play for venue, Google has sued Rockstar on its home turf in Northern California.

Among other reasons the dispute should be heard in California, Google lawyers note that Apple is a large shareholder and has a seat on Rockstar's board of directors. Google also says that Rockstar started farming out its patents shortly after its formation and transferred more than 1,000 patents to Apple alone.

The new lawsuit (PDF) also notes that Rockstar has reached out to hundreds of other companies in recent months seeking to license the patents. Much of that activity has gone on in California. "In fact, Rockstar’s CEO has stated that it would be difficult to imagine that any tech companies—legions of which call California home—do not infringe Rockstar’s patents," write Google lawyers.

Rockstar claims that its business is a suite in Plano, Texas, "but the substantial majority of its employees, including senior management, are based in Ontario, Canada," notes Google. "Rockstar Consortium is admittedly a 'patent licensing business' that produces no products, and instead exists solely to assert its patents... Rockstar intends the Android OEM Actions to harm Google’s Android platform and disrupt Google’s relationships with the Android OEM Defendants."

Rockstar is owned by Apple, BlackBerry, Microsoft, Ericsson, and Sony. The company paid $4.5 billion to acquire the Nortel patent portfolio, the largest sum ever spent on patents.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

Absolutely nobody who loves technology should be rooting for groups like Rockstar to win these patent cases. The only ones who suffer in patent disputes are the consumers, who either have the buck passed off to them as the products they want get more expensive to cover the legal expenses, or are not able to buy the products they want as products are deemed "illegal" to sell on store shelves.

Competition should make competitors build better products to better compete in the market. A company attempting to sue their competition out of existence is punishing consumers for their inability to make a convincing product.

Let's not forget Google bought Motorola Mobility and immediately started suing Microsoft and Apple for SEP.

The SEP lawsuits with Apple and Microsoft began several years before Google acquired them, in 2010 if I recall. Google didn't acquire Motorola until late May of 2012, and it can take a year or more more large companies like that to merge properly.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

They could have avoided it simply by paying to join the "Rockstar" patent group. It also probably would have cost less than $3.1 billion to do so.

I'm not sure that's so clear. There's been a decades long running legal struggle between Apple Corp and Apple Computer. I think it's now under a mutual agreement. I think there's been a few back and forth wins between them. One could argue that producing music and producing computers are not the same industry, yet there has been this "battle".

This is why patents should not exist. They're more about owning something that can be used as leverage against others than providing society with innovations. In practice, they're used to keep competitors from innovating. Patents were supposed to encourage innovation, but they impede it instead.

And before someone tries to counter with the "others are profiting from my work" argument, just remember that the inventors that "need protection" are building their innovations on the hard work of others. So it's a bit hypocritical to take some water from the town well and then complain when someone else dips their ladle in after you.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

No. They could end this situation quickly by agreeing to pay royalties, which are almost certainly far cheaper than $3.1B.

Patents expire after 20 years and many of these patents are probably close to 20 years old by now. Even if google were to pay a hundred million dollars a year, they'd all expire long before reaching $3.1 billion dollars. And it's highly unlikely the licensing fees are that high.

The only justification for $3.1 billion dollars is if Google intended to force other corporations to pay them royalties.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

No. They could end this situation quickly by agreeing to pay royalties, which are almost certainly far cheaper than $3.1B.

Patents expire after 20 years and many of these patents are probably close to 20 years old by now. Even if google were to pay a hundred million dollars a year, they'd all expire long before reaching $3.1 billion dollars. And it's highly unlikely the licensing fees are that high.

The only justification for $3.1 billion dollars is if Google intended to force other corporations to pay them royalties.

I'm not sure that's so clear. There's been a decades long running legal struggle between Apple Corp and Apple Computer. I think it's now under a mutual agreement. I think there's been a few back and forth wins between them. One could argue that producing music and producing computers are not the same industry, yet there has been this "battle".

Apple Corp is the holder of The Beatles IP.

Apple Corp holds a trademark in the music industry. Apple Inc. (which used to be named Apple Computer) holds a trademark in the consumer electronics industry.

Apple Corp sued Apple Computer and we never had a verdict, they settled when Apple Computer agreed not to get into the "music business". And then it flared up and went to court again when Apple sold a computer with a built in sound card. They settled that court case again, so we don't know who was legally in the right. This is around the time Apple added a system sound "Sosumi" which is still pre-installed on all macs today. And the dispute flared up again when Apple started selling music on the iTunes Music store... and once again they settled without it ever going to court, probably because the beatles wanted to be able to sell their music on the largest music store in the world.

The dispute had nothing at all to do with patents, and since it never went to court nobody knows who would have won the court case. I'm not a lawyer but I think in the initial lawsuit the judge would have said "you're not in the same industry, so you can keep using the same name".

And then later on when Apple started selling music, the judge would have simply pointed out that everyone in the world knows who Apple Computer is but Apple Corp is basically a shell company that doesn't use it's brand name for anything at all, people look for a beatles album - they don't look for an Apple Corp album. The court would have agreed there was a valid trademark dispute (they're both in the same industry) and would have ordered Apple Corp to change their name, because in a trademark dispute whichever company is most well known to the consumer is the one that wins the court case.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

No. They could end this situation quickly by agreeing to pay royalties, which are almost certainly far cheaper than $3.1B.

Patents expire after 20 years and many of these patents are probably close to 20 years old by now. Even if google were to pay a hundred million dollars a year, they'd all expire long before reaching $3.1 billion dollars. And it's highly unlikely the licensing fees are that high.

The only justification for $3.1 billion dollars is if Google intended to force other corporations to pay them royalties.

Phone arena reported that rockstar already sold some patents to another troll, and is having trouble getting anyone to pay royalties.

Just remember Nortel didn't bother trolling people before with their patents and shows clearly why the patent troll law should pass for these asshats.

Competition should make competitors build better products to better compete in the market. A company attempting to sue their competition out of existence is punishing consumers for their inability to make a convincing product.

We need patents and intellectual property. Letting market forces dictate everything (as you suggest) will only lead to the big guys getting bigger.

No garage tinkerer will ever be able to compete against all the money and resources that a Google/Apple/Microsoft have at their disposal.

In an Apple versus Google world, your statement makes sense and even sounds great. However, I'd like to live in a world where a guy named Homer can build an awesome backpain-curing-tool out of a trash can in his garage and repel the Chiropractor Consortium. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Home ... O-Cylinder

All we know is this single claim that Google was offered to join but have no information about what it would cost Google to join. The requirements to join might have been something crippling to Google and not worth the asking price.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

No. They could end this situation quickly by agreeing to pay royalties, which are almost certainly far cheaper than $3.1B.

Patents expire after 20 years and many of these patents are probably close to 20 years old by now. Even if google were to pay a hundred million dollars a year, they'd all expire long before reaching $3.1 billion dollars. And it's highly unlikely the licensing fees are that high.

The only justification for $3.1 billion dollars is if Google intended to force other corporations to pay them royalties.

That misses the point. You skirt around the fact tha Rockstar felt the patents were worth MORE than 3.1B. Rockstar paid what they did because they felt they could make that money back, and more. Sure, Google could possibly get away with not being a target for less than 3.1B, but the whole Android ecosystem stands to suffer far more than that (think of all of the other companies). Google was probably trying to lock up the patents for *everyone's* sake.

They have a fairly well documented history of defending themselves with patents rather than attacking with patents. Ars actually had an article a few years back about how Google didn't hold many patents and then began collecting them because they realized they needed them for defense.

Uh... These are two different things. "You can't have them" and "join us" can both be true. It actually lends credence to the idea that they weren't in it to patent troll, otherwise, why not join? As a member they probably wouldn't have been able to protect their partners.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

No. They could end this situation quickly by agreeing to pay royalties, which are almost certainly far cheaper than $3.1B.

Patents expire after 20 years and many of these patents are probably close to 20 years old by now. Even if google were to pay a hundred million dollars a year, they'd all expire long before reaching $3.1 billion dollars. And it's highly unlikely the licensing fees are that high.

The only justification for $3.1 billion dollars is if Google intended to force other corporations to pay them royalties.

That misses the point. You skirt around the fact tha Rockstar felt the patents were worth MORE than 3.1B. Rockstar paid what they did because they felt they could make that money back, and more. Sure, Google could possibly get away with not being a target for less than 3.1B, but the whole Android ecosystem stands to suffer far more than that (think of all of the other companies). Google was probably trying to lock up the patents for *everyone's* sake.

They have a fairly well documented history of defending themselves with patents rather than attacking with patents. Ars actually had an article a few years back about how Google didn't hold many patents and then began collecting them because they realized they needed them for defense.

Google valued the patents for a billon. To apple and Microsoft, it was worth an extra 3.5 billon to not be in Google's hand.

Jokes on them if the Patent troll law gets past. They'll never recoup in royalties.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.

No. They could end this situation quickly by agreeing to pay royalties, which are almost certainly far cheaper than $3.1B.

Patents expire after 20 years and many of these patents are probably close to 20 years old by now. Even if google were to pay a hundred million dollars a year, they'd all expire long before reaching $3.1 billion dollars. And it's highly unlikely the licensing fees are that high.

The only justification for $3.1 billion dollars is if Google intended to force other corporations to pay them royalties.

That misses the point. You skirt around the fact tha Rockstar felt the patents were worth MORE than 3.1B. Rockstar paid what they did because they felt they could make that money back, and more. Sure, Google could possibly get away with not being a target for less than 3.1B, but the whole Android ecosystem stands to suffer far more than that (think of all of the other companies). Google was probably trying to lock up the patents for *everyone's* sake.

They have a fairly well documented history of defending themselves with patents rather than attacking with patents. Ars actually had an article a few years back about how Google didn't hold many patents and then began collecting them because they realized they needed them for defense.

So what you are saying is that Google have a well documented history of infringing other people's patents and instead of licensing or coming up with non-infringing methods they instead try to bully the competition with the fear of counter-suits from a more costly patent?

Story is wrong actually. Google is not claiming these patents are invalid, not in this lawsuit, anyway. Furthermore, these are not Rockstar's patents on associative search engine advertising (the ones that go to Google's jugular and which it really needs to really worry about). These patents are hardware, networking, telephony, and UI patents asserted against various Android handsets and tablets (Google itself wasn't sued on these). The claim here is that the handsets/tablets don't infringe. Not a word about validity. Not a word about the associative search patents. Google would rather see these cases fought in its home court rather than in Texas, and it looks like Google is stepping in here to defend the manufacturers. My guess is they're stuck in Texas. Time will tell.

We need patents and intellectual property. Letting market forces dictate everything (as you suggest) will only lead to the big guys getting bigger.

No garage tinkerer will ever be able to compete against all the money and resources that a Google/Apple/Microsoft have at their disposal.

Bullshit. I'm a "garage tinkerer" and I do not have a spare ~$150,000 to file a patent, nor do I have a spare ~$2 million to actually take someone to court if they infringe on my patent.

Patents do not protect the "little guy" unless that guy works for a massive corporation. Then you could argue patents are beneficial, although I think it's a net loss.

Still, whether I like it or not patents do exist, and I have nothing against anyone who uses patent law to fund their R&D department. If we are going to have patents, then every massive corporation should use them not just the asshole ones.

Google tried to buy these patents for $3.14159 billion dollars (yes, pi), so obviously their lawyers think many of the patents are valid.

Rockstar also tried to convince Google to be a founding member of the group, but Google refused. It was only a matter of time before Rockstar asked Google to pay royalties and if Google isn't paying them, then a lawsuit was sure to follow.

Just as likely they tried to buy them because they knew paying $3.1B would be less trouble than trying to deal with ... this exact situation.